“We followed all the rules,” he said. “But if we had had more information, it would have been a different outcome, totally.”

The juror, who asked not to be named publicly, said he and the other 11 Superior Court jurors did what they were supposed to do: they studied what evidence was presented to them and followed Judge Elpedio N. Vitale’s detailed instructions, including the requirement that the state prove Whitfield’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The juror said that as he left the courthouse Friday after the “not guilty” verdict to murder, felony murder and carrying a pistol without a permit was announced, he saw the distraught members of the Dudley family and told them, “I’m sorry for your loss.”

“They thanked me,” he recalled. “But then they said, ‘Go home and look it up. You don’t know the whole story. He (Whitfield) had already shot somebody else.’”

The juror was shocked when he got home and read the New Haven Register’s online account of the verdict, which contained two pieces of information withheld from the jury: Whitfield told Hamden police he had shot Dudley as they struggled over the gun, and Whitfield is awaiting sentencing on a first-degree assault charge for repeatedly shooting another man 18 months before he was said to have shot Dudley. That victim, Aaron Carpenter, was critically injured but survived. (Jurors are never told of a defendant’s criminal convictions or pending cases because knowing such information would be prejudicial.)

The juror was so shaken and upset that he called the New Haven Register.

“I feel bad for the family,” he said. “They have no justice.”

During that conversation, the juror asked why the jurors were not permitted to know about Whitfield’s statement. The reporter explained that Whitfield’s three public defenders filed a motion before the trial to have the statement suppressed because they contended the Hamden police detective who questioned Whitfield at length, Donald Remillard, was “unduly coercive.”

After Vitale viewed the videotape of that interview, listened to Remillard’s testimony about it during a pretrial hearing Jan. 26 and heard arguments from the defense and prosecution, he granted the defense motion to exclude Whitfield’s statement in the trial.

Senior Public Defender Joseph E. Lopez, who wrote the motion and cross-examined Remillard during the pretrial hearing, noted that Whitfield was only 17 at the time of Dudley’s shooting in August 2012 and the subsequent police interview. Lopez said Whitfield also was “cognitively limited.” His aunt was present during the interview at the Hamden police station, acting as his guardian.

Lopez talked Monday about Vitale’s ruling, saying: “The police can do more and more outrageous things” during interviews with a suspect, including lying about what evidence they have in an effort to get the suspect to talk.

“But at some point,” Lopez added, “they crossed the line here.”

Remillard could not be reached for comment. Hamden Police Chief Thomas Wydra last week told the Register he needed more time to think about the issue before making a statement. He did not return a follow-up phone call message this week.

Lopez noted Whitfield repeatedly told Remillard, “I didn’t do this,” but Remillard became more and more “aggressive” in his questioning.

“He (Remillard) was in his face for 40 minutes, telling him, ‘Oh yes, you did do it,’” Lopez said.

When Lopez cross-examined Remillard at the pretrial hearing, Remillard said police are allowed to tell a suspect there is overwhelming evidence against him, even if this is not true.

Remillard said he told Whitfield early in the interview that he had done a lot of investigation on Dudley’s shooting and informed him he had been charged with murder.

Remillard conceded under Lopez’ questioning that he told Whitfield his life was in danger because there were people looking for him who were angry about what he had done. Remillard acknowledged he didn’t know this to be true.

Remillard also acknowledged he told Whitfield there were “business owners” that saw him pull the trigger and that 10 people put him on the scene, which was North Street in Hamden. Remillard conceded this was untrue; police had just one eyewitness, whose testimony during the trial was deemed inconsistent by the jury, leading to Whitfield’s acquittal. There was no physical evidence in the case linking Whitfield to the shooting.

When Lopez asked Remillard if he had been “claiming evidence that doesn’t exist to try to get him to confess,” Remillard replied, “If that’s what it’s called, I guess.” He said this is “a common technique” and that he has “done it a lot.”

When Lopez asked Remillard if he told Whitfield he “would look like a serial murderer in the eyes of the court” and “would look like (the mass murderer) Charles Manson” if he didn’t provide the information Remillard was seeking, Remillard replied: “Correct.”

Remillard also acknowledged he told Whitfield “you’ll do the rest of your life in jail” if he didn’t cooperate and that he would come out of prison in a wheelchair.

The detective also conceded telling Whitfield if he remained silent, he would be (expletive) at his trial but if he did talk, Remillard could “put the thing to rest today.”

Lopez focused on the 38th minute of the interview, just before Whitfield began to admit he was involved in the shooting. At that time, Remillard acknowledged, he told Whitfield if he didn’t talk, the public would learn this and he would put lots of people “in danger.”

Remillard conceded he then told Whitfield there had been a threat of retaliation made against his 15-year-old female cousin, which was untrue. That cousin was the daughter of Whitfield’s aunt, who was listening to the questioning.

When Lopez asked if he told Whitfield “I’m concerned about the safety of (his aunt), her daughters and all these small children,” Remillard replied he had said that.

Remillard also conceded he presented Whitfield with just two options: either he cooperated or he would serve a long prison term.

During follow-up questioning by Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Gary Nicholson at that hearing, Remillard said Whitfield always had the option during that interview to deny he had committed a crime.

When the juror was told about what Remillard had said to Whitfield, he replied, “The Hamden police (messed-up).” He used an expletive. He added, “Why didn’t they dust the car for prints? Wouldn’t you want to link him (Whitfield) to the crime?

“I still respect the police,” the juror added. “But I didn’t know their tactics.”

The juror said, “The system has to be fixed. ... I want to see justice for this (Dudley) family.” But he had no suggestion as to how it can be “fixed.”

“I was hoping for a hung jury,” he said. “(T)here was that reasonable doubt about that one witness.”

The juror, who said he couldn’t sleep during the final days of the trial, was upset when told that under a plea agreement, Whitfield, who is still being held in lieu of $50,500 bail as he awaits sentencing on the assault case, will serve only five years for that other shooting. “That’s crazy. He’s somebody that’s not afraid to pull the trigger.”